Residence/work permit hasnt arrived

[Hank W.]

BTW Fred, your employer ought to call the UVI with the number of your permit application and do the: "be nice"/"beg"/"threaten with Daryl" - routine.

[daryl]

Erm... no. "Internal mobility" is for an EU citizen moving within the EU. An EU citizen moving from outside the EU, as in this case the USA is not "moving internally".

In the case of Freddy, he is a non-EU foreigner who is moving to (EU), where the EU country he is moving to immigration laws apply before the EU internal mobility applies.

Did you even bother to read the sections of the Aliens Act that I referred to?

Family members of EU citizens are entitled to arrive in and remain in the territory of a Member State subject to the Community Law provisions governing the exercise of that entitlement and to general ordre public conditions.

If this immigrant was the child or married spouse of his companion, then we would not be engaged in this discussion. The ONLY question at stake here is the family relationship.

Now look at the details of the case and consider it from this point of view.

Apart from which, your passport says you are you, not who you are married with. So the employesr still has nothing else to care for except the stamp in the passport.

So are you saying that a family member of an EU citizen must have an entry in a passport in order to secure rights under the provisions of chapter 10 of the Aliens Act?

In short, have you got any idea at all what you are talking about?

And if you get harrassed as many times as me with the police, you'd be more aware of the "unspecified powers" except I am not a foreigner so I cannot complain. I need to do a work for a living, and not spend days complaining to some entities. I just blow the whistle, open the boot and have a silly grin. Of course this means I need to be sober and can't have body parts in the boot, but heck, I'll get to work. "Demanding my rights" takes a day or half of billable work.

Nobody cares for the working man.

See now, I do appreciate what you do for the speedo-clad bicyclists. I just don't agree on sending the 12-year olds over the zebra just because they are right.

We have had the discussion before about "Hank advises others on their rights but then is too much of a wimp to stand up for his own."

In any case, the initiative is reversed in this case. Indeed that is the whole point. This is about where and how someone waits for the bureaucracy to recognise the facts of a matter. Pre-emption is certainly justified under the circumstances of this case.

daryl

[Hank W.]

So are you saying that a family member of an EU citizen must have an entry in a passport in order to secure rights under the provisions of chapter 10 of the Aliens Act?

Yes. "arrive in and remain". Equation has also "work from Midsummer". This is the problem, because the employer does not need to know/care/interprete the aliens act. They just need to see the possession of a permit. The foreigner in question has the "burden of proof" under the Criminal Code.

You seem not to grasp the idea of "possession" here? If the law clearly states that the foreigner must be in possession of a valid permit; then it is so. You can interprete it so much your ass spins blue, but no employer is going to risk employing a foreigner if they don't have the correct paperwork. How does the employer know/ how can they foretell that the foreigner is entitled to a residence permit? That is why you have the UVI putting the sticker to the passport. So there is no ambiguity. Its as easy as that.

In short, have you got any idea at all what you are talking about?

You apparently have no idea of what you are talking about. Fred can *come* here all he wants but he cannot work, until he has the valid permit. And if there is a valid permit "in the mail" coming to Finland and re-applying is... another 4-6 months process. Fred wants to work after Midsummer.

We have had the discussion before about "Hank advises others on their rights but then is too much of a wimp to stand up for his own."

See now the difference between you and me is I can count. Apparently you cannot do the maths here? One plane ticket + a week or two in NY vs. 3-6 months unemployed in Helsinki. See now the difference between you and me is I don't have the luxury of time or money or energy to go fight the windmills. I don't fight the system, I know how it works and how to use it.

Say like the car tax thing - it took the guy 5 years to take his Mercedes -Benz through the courts and the law changed, and complaints filed, and the law changed. Meanwhile did the guy drive his Mercedes-Benz or did it rot in a Customs cage? See now I've been driving all that time. If you want to take the bus for 5 years you can call me a wimp all you like.

[daryl]

So are you saying that a family member of an EU citizen must have an entry in a passport in order to secure rights under the provisions of chapter 10 of the Aliens Act?

Yes. Because the person they are facing does not need to know/care/interprete the aliens act. The foreigner in question has the "burden of proof" under the Criminal Code.

How can I put this delicately?

What you just said was "the Finnish Penal Code presumes guilt and requires proof of innocence".

Would you like to retract that observation?

You seem not to grasp the idea of "possession" here? If the law clearly states that the foreigner must be in possession of a valid permit; then it is so. You can interprete it so much your ass spins, but no employer is going to risk employing a foreigner if they don't have the correct paperwork. How does the employer know/ how can they foretell that the foreigner is entitled to a residence permit? That is why you have the UVI putting the sticker to the passport. So there is no ambiguity. Its as easy as that.

Well now let me see. For as long as I have been in Finland [nearly 20 years] certain classes of foreigner in Finland have been exempt from any requirement to "possess" a work permit or residence permit. It is your view, however, that these foreigners were committing a criminal offence by working in Finland.

Amazingly, none of these foreigners were ever prosecuted for the offence of working without the work permit that they did not need and that could not be issued to them even if they requested it.

In short, have you got any idea at all what you are talking about?

You apparently have no idea of what you are talking about.

What is so difficult for you about the notion of block exemption from the work/residence permit requirement?

I refer you to the provisions of the Aliens Act that I have already mentioned. Family members of an EU citizen do not get "a sticker in the passport" unless they arrive in Finland separately from the EU citizen in question. In this case an unmarried spouse is arriving in Finland with an EU citizen. The ONLY legal issue at stake here is whether a family relationship exists. Based on everything that the immigrant has told us, I am fairly sure that it does. I am even more sure that this will be clear by the time the bureaucracy has settled the question. The place to wait for this to happen may as well be Finland.

We have had the discussion before about "Hank advises others on their rights but then is too much of a wimp to stand up for his own."

See now the difference between you and me is I don't have the luxury of time or money or energy to go fight the windmills. I don't fight the system, I know how it works and how to use it.

Say like the car tax thing - it took the guy 5 years to take his Mercedes -Benz through the courts and the law changed, and complaints filed, and the law changed. Meanwhile did the guy drive his Mercedes-Benz or did it rot in a Customs cage? See now I've been driving all that time. If you want to take the bus for 5 years you can call me a wimp all you like.

Except for one thing, at least. You are recommending to others that they should also be wimps. It is one thing to live in a barrel because you are afraid to go into the house. I applaud you for it, as I have done before. You keep my taxes down by not claiming public services.

It is quite another thing to try to encourage others to follow your example however. Just because you do not claim your rights (out of wimpishness, ignorance, the desire for a quiet life or whatever justification comforts you), does not mean that the rest of us must follow suit.

By the way, you might be prosecuted for the criminal offence of not cleaning the windows of my house. I'll expect to see you here bright and early tomorrow morning with your squeegee and bucket. Or else something unspecified may happen to you.

daryl

[Hank W.]

What you just said was "the Finnish Penal Code presumes guilt and requires proof of innocence".
Would you like to retract that observation?

No. Have you ever gotten arbitrarily taxed? So when can you file a complaint - it is *after* you pay the taxes you don't owe.

The law has high objectives, but how things work "in practice" is a different thing.

It is your view, however, that these foreigners were committing a criminal offence by working in Finland.

Can your read? The *employer* is the one chancing committing the crime. It is not for the employer to go interpreting the laws. There is an "easy list" who needs and who needs not.

The place to wait for this to happen may as well be Finland.

Another 3-6 monts vs. the few weeks?

Except for one thing, at least. You are recommending to others that they should also be wimps.

If the damage is greater than the benefits. Its a cold triage calculation, reverse triage in this case. No, you don't need this and that paper; however yes, having one and acting like the rest will make life a hell of a lot easier.

. Just because you do not claim your rights (out of wimpishness, ignorance, the desire for a quiet life or whatever justification comforts you), does not mean that the rest of us must follow suit.

No, but not everybody has the inner knowledge of how futile the bureaxcracy battle is. If you want things happen *now* or in 10 years. The person asking wants generally to know what happens *now* he doesn't care what happens in 10 years. You might be interested in what happens in 10 years.

By the way, you might be prosecuted for the criminal offence of not cleaning the windows of my house. I'll expect to see you here bright and early tomorrow morning with your squeegee and bucket. Or else something unspecified may happen to you.l

The law forbids indecent exposure

[daryl]

What you just said was "the Finnish Penal Code presumes guilt and requires proof of innocence".
Would you like to retract that observation?

No. Have you ever gotten arbitrarily taxed? So when can you file a complaint - it is *after* you pay the taxes you don't owe.

The law has high objectives, but how things work "in practice" is a different thing.

Silly boy! What does this have to do with the Penal Code?

What I am quite sure about is that officials will not act "in practice" in a case of this kind until their legal authority to do so is clear. To intervene in an employment relationship by insisting on permission when the law provides for exemption specifically exposes the official to a civil action for damages.

But what's 20 years of experience in this kind of thing stacked up against your wimpish guesswork?

It is your view, however, that these foreigners were committing a criminal offence by working in Finland.

Can your read? The *employer* is the one chancing committing the crime. It is not for the employer to go interpreting the laws. There is an "easy list" who needs and who needs not.

So the *employer* was committing a crime (what crime?) when hiring a citizen of Iceland in 1985 with no work permit, residence permit or even passport formalities?

Please try to get your mind around the idea of block exemption. This is not a new concept in Finland: it has applied to the citizens of other Nordic countries for decades. Nowadays there are corresponding arrangements for the whole of the European Community, and these arrangements also apply to family members under certain conditions that are defined in Community Law and in the Aliens Act.

Citizens of EU/EEA countries and their family members, as defined in the Aliens Act, are exempt from work permit regulations in Finland. The only issue in this case is whether the immigrant is a family member of an EU citizen. If so, then the exemption applies. It applies based on the fact of being a family member, not based on any kind of official recognition of that fact. No official act of "giving permission" occurs at any point.

Just in passing, are you aware that the law in Finland does NOT give employers the right to see the passport or travel document of a foreign employee? If you disagree with this, then I'd like to see you point to the specific provision that gives employers any such right, as opposed to any provision that gives them a duty to ascertain the rights of their employees. This is an instructive little exercise in understanding the law and it would do you good to tackle it. I wonder if you can see how an employer can discharge the said duty while not having the right in question.

The place to wait for this to happen may as well be Finland.

Another 3-6 months vs. the few weeks?

These few weeks will be spent working and living with the family in Finland, not sleeping on the floor of an empty apartment in another country with no job and perhaps also rent to pay. And this is to say nothing about the cost of the airline ticket for the journey not made.

daryl

[sinikala]

Whoa Daryl & Hank, chill out guys, try not to get personal here, it's otherwise an excellent discussion.

I think we can all agree, there is a difference between the letter of the law and what happens in the real world.

Finland is a country which is driven by forms, to paraphrase Douglas Adams "You won't get what you want in Finland without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters."

Example, not even related really, but something that I think should be challenged... the tax man has agreed a couple of months ago that at the end of this year, they will pay me €600 rebate for 2005. Very generous of them... but I have to wait for 9 months to get what they owe me. But on the odd occasion we have owed the tax man something, we have had only a couple of months to pay them. Why has nobody challenged this.... why can they hold my money for 9 months?

There is a lot to be said for people who are willing to make the sacrifices, put in the effort and get the law changed, but some of us have to hold down a 9-5 job, legal crusading isn't in my job description. So, sadly, like most, I have to grumble (I am good at this ) and bite the bullet.

I'm sure that Hank is in the majority when making the financial calculation of what is going to cost more, it doesn't make him a wimp.

[Hank W.]

So the *employer* was committing a crime (what crime?) when hiring a citizen of Iceland in 1985 with no work permit, residence permit or even passport formalities?

Don't be silly. Everyone knows Iceland is not a "foreign country".

Just in passing, are you aware that the law in Finland does NOT give employers the right to see the passport or travel document of a foreign employee?

There is no duty to hire a foreigner either.

These few weeks will be spent working and living with the family in Finland, not sleeping on the floor of an empty apartment in another country with no job and perhaps also rent to pay. And this is to say nothing about the cost of the airline ticket for the journey not made.

You mean the 3-6 monts sitting around in Finland?

[Hank W.]

Why has nobody challenged this.... why can they hold my money for 9 months?

Well, see there is a few ways to go through this...

a) write to the parliament, Hannu Karpo, EU human rights court etc.
= end result, they'll still be holding your money for 9 months...

b) learn to calculate the taxes so that if runs a +-0...
= end result, you need to keep a good bookkeeping

c) "get back at them", buy your booze in Tallinn and calculate how much damage you are causing the tax orifice
= end result, enough booze and you can't figure out the difference between the 6 and 9 months

[raamv]

Hey Hank and Daryl,
you re the two sides of "looking at the law" from different directions..From a legal standpoint ( with which I agree with Dary) and a "practical" beauraucracy standpoint ( with which I agree what Hank says).
Now, if only we stop to think when the authorities apply the law legally (all the time) and when we apply bearaucracy to it ( most of the time)...
and its effects on the corporate responsibilities and individual responsibilities.
then both of you are right but in different perspectives.
I guess that the statuette of time for freddby has probably gone!! so he has to decide and take the risk...and THAT is his decision...so no point in justifying the risk factor in either Daryl's or Hank's case.
Considering the fact that if you are a foreigner in a country, you are a foreigner...no matter what..its difficult to make a decision based on just legal risks!!! One would try to avoid those situations rather than go to great lengths to take upon the legal intrpretations of the system and fight for that intrpretation, given his current circumstances...
/Raam

[daryl]

Just in passing, are you aware that the law in Finland does NOT give employers the right to see the passport or travel document of a foreign employee?

There is no duty to hire a foreigner either.

There is, however, a duty not to terminate employment without specified serious grounds.

An employer who terminates employment on the grounds that the employee would not display a travel document would be liable for damages for unlawful dismissal. This is not an instruction falling within the employer's right to direct a foreign employee, nor is a foreigner under any legal obligation to display a travel document other than to duly authorised public officials.

These few weeks will be spent working and living with the family in Finland, not sleeping on the floor of an empty apartment in another country with no job and perhaps also rent to pay. And this is to say nothing about the cost of the airline ticket for the journey not made.

You mean the 3-6 monts sitting around in Finland?

Yes. Time spent working in Finland and living with family while the authorities connect any such dots as need to be connected.

It occurs to me that part of the reason for the delay here may be that the grounds for immigration in this case do not require processing through a Finnish overseas mission at all.

daryl

[sinikala]

Why has nobody challenged this.... why can they hold my money for 9 months?

Well, see there is a few ways to go through this...

a) write to the parliament, Hannu Karpo, EU human rights court etc.
= end result, they'll still be holding your money for 9 months...

b) learn to calculate the taxes so that if runs a +-0...
= end result, you need to keep a good bookkeeping

c) "get back at them", buy your booze in Tallinn and calculate how much damage you are causing the tax orifice
= end result, enough booze and you can't figure out the difference between the 6 and 9 months

a) Finns = Vogons?

b) a bit difficult, circumstances change during the year... salaries can rise, extra money can come in, can claim for some travel expenses, can claim for some labour on building work done... etc.

I'd been here for 2 years when I was hit for a tax bill of 12,000 mummon Markkaa on extra income, I was determined that it should never again be -ve, more usually I get back €100-200.

c) the amount I drink in a year, they don't get much tax out of me that way anyhow.... max €50 p.a.

[raamv]

When you get back Money -> money without interest!! Ok but then its as good as money in the bank without interest ( better yet, think of it as future savings)
OTOH,
When you pay back money -> All of your tax "deductions" taken care of, and if you have extra income, prepare for future payments...In essence, it will be a better plan if you pay back tax.
3rd plan: One of you or SO pays and the other gets back, then your taxes can be in balance. Whoever earns less pays, whoever earns more gets back!!!

[Freddyb]

Thanks for all the good advice. The "de justo" v "de facto" dillemma. Well Im still here in NY. I decided not to risk it. I have plenty of experience not getting what is legally mine so, I'm not taking the chance.

Also Finns tend to follow "the rules," percieved or otherwise, so I dont think my employer would allow me to work without proper documetation, regardless of the letter of the new aliens act.

Thank you again.

[Freddyb]

BTW Fred, your employer ought to call the UVI with the number of your permit application and do the: "be nice"/"beg"/"threaten with Daryl" - routine.

already on that